| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2005 07:03:18 AM |
| Object: |
Recoil in Horror from the Miers Nomination |
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/10/7/14426/8231
Recoil in Horror from the Miers Nomination
by Chris Bowers
Over at Is That Legal?, Eric Mullar listened in to the White House
sponsored conference call on Miers. The quotes he highlights
demonstrate a complete lack of support for judicial independence and
concern for the Constitution. Truly sickening stuff.
First, throw the Constitution out of the window.
Eric quotes Sarah Taylor, the White House director of political
affairs (emphasis in original):
---------------------------------------------------
Harriet Miers is "somebody who not only makes decisions based on
what's in the Constitution but makes decisions that ... uh ... uh, she
believes strongly in."
-----------------------------------------------
Eric then notes (emphasis in original):
-------------------------------------------------
Oh. So Justice Miers' own strong beliefs will inform her
constitutional interpretation? Really? I thought that was what judges
weren't supposed to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Second, say hello to court packing and cronyism. Jay Sekulow said the
following on the conference call:
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm involved in three three cases at the Court this Term, and believe
me: I want Harriet Meirs up there voting on these critical cases."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oh. My. God. Eric notes:
---------------------------------------------------------------
This, folks, is an outrage. The White House has lined up a lawyer with
cases now pending before the United States Supreme Court to get on a
White-House-sponsored conference call to tell conservatives that they
should support the nominee so that she can vote in his pending cases!
(...)
And if Harriet Miers has an inkling that the White House is lining up
Sekulow to make this particular pitch, why, I would say that's
disqualifying right there.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And, for good measure, throw judicial independence out the window,
because Miers is just going to do whatever Bush thinks the court
should do. Richard Land of the Southern Bapist convention said the
following on the call:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the things that someone as a sixth-generation Texan that I want
to add to this call and that is this: The two things that are probably
.... there are two virtues that are valued as highly as any virtue can
be valued in the Texas culture, and those two virtues are courage and
loyalty. Courage and loyalty. And this President, he knows that
Harriet Miers is also a Texan, and, with a degree of understanding
that would never have to be articulated, he and she both understand
that if she were to get on the Court and she were to rule in ways that
were contrary to the ways that the president would want her to
approach her role as a justice it would be a deep personal betrayal
and would be perceived as such by both by him and by her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This goes beyond any issue of stealth nominees or qualified nominees.
This is the White House openly and publicly doing away with an
independent judiciary and completely ignoring the Constitution itself.
This is more than just cronyism--this is anti-modern feudalism where
laws are made not on any pre-existing set of documents or precedents,
but instead by the personal inklings and fealty ties of a small,
privileged few. The White House has said that she is going to vote on
her personal beliefs. The White House has said that she will vote the
way Bush wants her to vote. The White House has said that they are
putting her on the court to swing some important cases that are about
to come before the court. These are not things that a modern,
representative democracy does. This is more than enough to demand that
the Miers nomination be withdrawn. This is probably enough to demand
Bush's impeachment, all by itself. Utterly grotesque. Recoil in horror
indeed.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
